Worlds apart:the healthcare systems of the United States and the United Kingdom - Research Paper Example

?Worlds Apart: The Healthcare Systems of the United s and the United Kingdom Introduction The health care systems of the United s and the United Kingdom provide an avenue for a compare and contrast task that seems to be forever perplexing. While the US system is considered private, Great Britain has a national health system that offers universal coverage, just like Canada. Remarkably, UK’s National Health Systems (NHS) are fundamentally designed to render accessible and affordable health services for all segments of the population; however, such systems are plagued by many criticisms which would boil down to quality of care. On the other hand, critics of the US health care system often point to the issue of affordability and accessibility of medical services in the country. In this essay, the writer would not aim to categorically proclaim which country has the better health care system than the other. Instead, the writer would only point to the available facts and other relevant information to build the case that there still needs to be done to improve both countries’ health care systems. Essentially, it should be noted that the privatized US system has many aspects to reform, and thus learn from the socialized British health care structure, and vice versa. Matter of Facts A publicly funded health care system derived from taxation, the UK government pays for the medical expenses of its citizens. Unlike in the United States where people pay for medical insurance and regularly contribute to the social system through a deduction from their salary or from a premium paid for by their employers, residents of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales enjoy from holistic and supplementary medical treatments without worrying from any financial obligation. Conversely, US citizens obtain health services from facilities which are largely owned and operated by private entities. Americans may only shoulder a very minimal amount in their medical bills if they are part of insurance programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE among others which are all government authorized. Reports indicate that the English NHS cares for roughly 50 million people, which is 100% percent of the UK population, meanwhile the US only covers 28% of its population or 83 million people for its (insurance-based) public health care (Niles, 2010). However, according to the data provided by the World Health Organization, the US is significantly spending much in its government funds for health care than the UK does. In 2006, the total expenditure on health per GDP (%) in the US was 15.3, contrastingly in the UK it was only 8.2. Per capita spending on health in the US was 6719 and in the UK was only 2815. In addition, there were 26 doctors per 10, 000 population in the US and only 23 in the UK (WHO, 2009). These facts, surprisingly, are contested by the number of hospital beds in the UK, which was 39 per 10, 000 population and only 31 in the US. And ultimately, the life expectancy at birth of the Americans is only 78 years, while the British people are expected to live as long as 80 years. For mortality rates, both countries had different positive facets, as in cancer and in cardiovascular conditions (WHO, 2009). Country Total expenditure on health as % of GDP, 2006 Per Capita Spending on Health, 2006 (US$) Doctors, 2000-2007 (per 10,000 population) Hospital beds (per 10,000 population) Life expectan-cy at birth, 2007 (years) Cancer mortality rates, 2004 (per 100,000 population) Cardiovascular mortality rates, 2004 (per 100,000 population) Canada 10 3673 19 34 81 135 131 Germany 10.6 3465 34 83 80 135 199 United Kingdom 8.2 2815 23 39 80 147 175 United States 15.3 6719 26 31 78 133 179 Source: World Health Organization, 2009 Link: http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/2009/en/index.html On Accessibility and Cost-Efficiency The issue of access centers on the extent to which people obtain medical services. This is frequently associated with the events during hospitalization and other treatments. Due to the privatized health care system in the US, Americans may develop hesitations in seeking medical attention, primarily because of the high cost. Factually, in the United States, people are rendered much medical breakthroughs and advancements. The number of specialist doctors in the US is comparatively higher than in the UK, hence the explanation of expensive healthcare treatments (Lumby, 2001). It was also observed that in the US, administrative costs and malpractice premiums for health care professionals are extremely high. Aside from these, the intensity of care offered to the patients is considerably far-reaching. The types of tests, procedures, medicines and professionals involved in the treatment of a particular medical necessity are substantially extensive in the US than in the UK. For example, a patient with hypertension may receive 40 times more electrocardiograms, six times more chest films, five times more blood count and four times more urinalysis in a US health care facility than in its British counterparts (Flood, 2000). Opposite from the US health care system which is working through employment-based insurance schemes where majority of the population is uninsured (unemployed and/or barred due to pre-existing health problems), UK has free and open access health care facilities to its citizens, usually in primary care settings. Although the provision of specialist services is relatively scarce, other services such as ambulance for emergencies and dental operations are usually free of charge. One pervasive criticism, though, among hospitals in England is the parking fee that they impose on admitted patients and visitors with vehicles. With regard to pharmaceutical products, the British is charged a fixed amount of ?7.40 per item. Exceptions are for patients under 16 years of age and over 59 years who can avail of prescribed drugs for free. People with certain medical conditions like cancer, pregnant women and those with low incomes can also acquire medicines for free. Contraceptive prescriptions are also absolutely acquired at no cost. In Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, prescription medicines in hospitals are readily given without any payment required from the client (Matthews, 2009). Quality of Care and Level of Satisfaction American journalist Brinley Bruton who was once hospitalized in a hospital in England three years ago recounted her experiences in both US and UK health care facilities. According to her, although the American hospital would urgently attend to its patients and offer sophisticated services, the patient would be surely ruined financially because at times insurance policies would not cover certain conditions and would justify nullification of some services which are beyond the coverage. On the other hand, though her experience in a UK public hospital was terribly mediocre and the health care providers seemed to her very busy to pay her enough attention, she was relieved by the fact that she has nothing to worry in terms of any monetary burden (Bruton, 2008). The fact that UK public hospitals have a number of patients in-house, it is only logical to assume that the quality of care and service provided to individual client is compromised, if not deficient. Miss Bruton’s case is on a personal dimension yet it could be validated from other large-scale perspectives such as from research findings and surveys. In a longitudinal study that involved American and British respondents, it was found out that UK performed best in providing equitable health care services (Blendon et al., 2002). A great deal of the Britons are also satisfied with their health care system than with the Americans who believe that complete reform is needed to improve their health care organizations (Ham, 2005). The wait times that Miss Bruton pointed in her narrative are also an undisputed reality in UK. Research was able to document that in specialist and elective types of care and in non-emergency surgeries, British medical facilities procrastinate, while, their US equivalents never delay in both basic and high-end procedures (Ham, 2005). Conclusion Health care systems and policies of nations can be judged as a work in process and progress. Reforms and innovations are necessitated to further deliver quality and accessible health care to the people, especially to the underprivileged ones. Ideally, the US government should continually formulate legislative agenda that seek to protect the basic human right of health and well-being of people. Not necessarily copying the British system, but at least it should now be contemplated by the national leaders and policy makers that a socialized health care system is proven beneficial and practical. On the other hand, the UK health care sector should also emulate from the American culture of urgency, efficacy and technology. References Blendon, R. J., Schoen, C., DesRoches, C. M., Osborn, R., Scoles, K. L., & Zapert, K. (2002). Inequities in health care: a five-country survey. Health Aff (Milwood), 21 (1), 182-91. Bruton, F. B. (2008). A tale of 2 sickbeds: Health care in U.K. vs. U.S. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26794291/ns/health-health_care/ Flood, C. M. (2000). International health care reform: A legal, economic and political analysis. London: Routledge. Ham, C. (2005). US and UK health care: a special relationship? British Medical Journal, 12 (330), 597-599. Lumby, J. (2001). Who Cares? The changing health care system. Crows Nest, N.S.W: Allen and Unwin. Matthews, J. C. (2009). UK v USA – the basic health care facts. Retrieved from http://liberalconspiracy.org/2009/08/14/uk-v-usa-the-basic-healthcare-facts/ Niles, N. J. (2010). Basics of the U.S Health Care System. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. World Health Organization. (2009). World Health Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/2009/en/index.html Read More